Waivers system reform proposal

[jetsforever]

So certain teams (imagine Buffalo for example) are generally not top destinations or very good teams, but instead of benefiting from waivers they would now lose out in both ways

 

[Oddbob]

The whole point to waivers is for teams to claim a guy that another team either doesn't need, or simply can't fit in their lineup. If the player can refuse, that means teams can't bring guys back to the roster from injury reserve as that is the main reason players get put on waivers, cause they were replacing an injured player. Also, why should a depth player get to decide where he goes. A team can literally trade any player without trade protection at any time, and they have no say in the matter. Why would a bit piece get Free Agent level control. One player can't control the options of an entire roster, especially when they aren't even a regular.

 

[Stephen]

The Sateri case is a little different than your typical in season waivers claim. I think for someone uprooting themselves probably shouldn't be diverted to another location and maybe play 3 games? College UFAs don't have to pass through waivers.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

So basically you are giving the worst players in the league an automatic NMC

 

[Divine]

Allowing players to decline being claimed on waivers defeats the whole purpose of it.

Rich teams could have half an NHL roster playing on their AHL team. The competitive advantage would be insane.

How does this make sense? The salary cap still applies. Moving someone to the minors only reduces the cap hit by 1M, the rest still applies.

In what world can you have half an NHL roster playing in the AHL, while counting against your cap and still ice a competitive hockey team?

To the original proposal, I like it.

Adjust it so that euro players signed after the Dec 1st deadline have to go through traditional waivers with no right to refuse though, and you close the loophole.